I've read all your arguments and they boil down to the same thing: You want an easy game where what buttons you press doesn't matter, as long as you press them you win. I can understand that, though I don't agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that you make Fury out to be much worse than it really is.

No, that's not what I want. I mean, I understand why you would like to pigeonhole it in that fashion because it's easier to dismiss a dissenting view to yours, but that doesn't make it true.

There are certain rotations in the game that I like. Protection warriors, for example, have what I consider a "fun" rotation. Not hugely complicated, but priorities shift due to procs and there's a lot of quick reactions required. I also like Elemental for similar reasons; it just flows nicely with clear fillers while you wait on your nukes and there are a couple of priority shifts to look out for. I like Fire, too, so we could argue that there is already a common theme in the types of rotation that I like playing; I like fish-fish-trucking where you can always do something, and the planning ahead is more related to cooldowns while you look to maximize your best attacks.

Naturally, there are other rotations that I find I strongly dislike. Dual-wield Frost is one example because I dislike feeling as though I should be doing more, and I'm not a fan of the way energy works for rogues (I don't play Feral or Windwalker, so have no clue if theirs is the same). I despise Arms because it's so horribly simple and, in general, I dislike charges on attacks because it feels like a bandage for otherwise lousy design. When you compare Arms to its Wrath counterpart and how Taste for Blood worked, it was dramatically more fun because timing was important.

But here's the rub.

The Fury rotation isn't hard, which is what's killing your assertion that I must dislike it because it is.

It's just not fun.

Proc-enhanced specs with attacks such as Shield Slam, Lava Surge or Pyroblast(!) are infinitely better, to me, than proc-reliant specs with attacks such as Raging Blow and/or Wild Strike. Proc-enhanced is when your proc feels like a bonus when it lights up, while proc-reliant is when you feel terribly punished if your procs don't come up. When you're playing a proc-reliant spec, one such attack is bad enough. Two is dreadful and, when accompanied by both a maintenance buff (Enrage) and short term rotational cooldown (which is what Colossus Smash effectively is), I don't think we're onto a winner.

As you can see throughout the rest of the thread, I'm not the only person who thinks this way.

So please stop whittling it down to "you just want an easy game".

I don't.

I just want a fun game.

And while that's subjective to me, it's also subjective to you - your views aren't absolutes.

i personally would kinda like to see RB as a base spell (no charges) in the rotation and BT maybe increasing HS dmg on proc or smth like that ... the enrage problem would persist, but at least the rotation could be played smoothly all the time and the micro-management still is somewhat there due to hs-buff handleing.

that would be pretty good i think.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Zellviren

The Fury rotation isn't hard, which is what's killing your assertion that I must dislike it because it is.

this goes back to your credibility. you say it isn't hard, but you have no proof of having mastered it. these arguments are going in circles.

If you want to talk to me about wow theorycrafting or anything really:Eranthe#1639

this goes back to your credibility. you say it isn't hard, but you have no proof of having mastered it. these arguments are going in circles.

You're taking what I said out of context, just to slight me. Is there a reason? I'm honestly not sure.

I could just as easily argue that you have no proof I haven't mastered it, but that wouldn't be relevant to my point.

Read my entire post, think about the context (refuting the assertion that I harbour solely a desire for easy rotations), and then respond. It'll help the conversation move along rather than vague, meaningless criticisms such as "this argument is going in circles".

You're taking what I said out of context, just to slight me. Is there a reason? I'm honestly not sure.

I could just as easily argue that you have no proof I haven't mastered it, but that wouldn't be relevant to my point.

Read my entire post, think about the context (refuting the assertion that I harbour solely a desire for easy rotations), and then respond. It'll help the conversation move along rather than vague, meaningless criticisms such as "this argument is going in circles".

i read your post. i quoted and refuted the part relevant to what i wanted to respond to. it wasn't taken out of context. the connotation of quoting someone out of context implies that their meaning was skewed because you didn't include their entire quote. how is the meaning of you saying the rotation isn't hard supported by the rest of your post?

you assert that the rotation is easy, implying that you've mastered it. you've made a claim. i asked you to provide some evidence to support your claim and you took offense and told me i was taking your words out of their context. the burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion, not on me for refuting your original claim.

prot warriors and elemental shamans have something in common in their rotations. they are really easy.

If you want to talk to me about wow theorycrafting or anything really:Eranthe#1639

i read your post. i quoted and refuted the part relevant to what i wanted to respond to. it wasn't taken out of context. the connotation of quoting someone out of context implies that their meaning was skewed because you didn't include their entire quote. how is the meaning of you saying the rotation isn't hard supported by the rest of your post?

you assert that the rotation is easy, implying that you've mastered it. you've made a claim. i asked you to provide some evidence to support your claim and you took offense and told me i was taking your words out of their context. the burden of proof is on you since you made the assertion, not on me for refuting your original claim.

prot warriors and elemental shamans have something in common in their rotations. they are really easy.

Sigh.

You do realise that this entire line of debate can be copy-pasted from countless threads on these forums? If the best you can do is try to close down a conversation with "GIEF PROOFF OR U SPK RUBISSH OMG" (which is what your commentary amounts to), then it's better you go speak to someone who might be impressed by it.

I won't be. In fact, I'm going to bookmark your response so that the next time I'm struggling with a spot of insomnia, I can read your sleep-inducing, pseudo-intellectual wittering and nod off.

You do realise that this entire line of debate can be copy-pasted from countless threads on these forums? If the best you can do is try to close down a conversation with "GIEF PROOFF OR U SPK RUBISSH OMG" (which is what your commentary amounts to), then it's better you go speak to someone who might be impressed by it.

I won't be. In fact, I'm going to bookmark your response so that the next time I'm struggling with a spot of insomnia, I can read your sleep-inducing, pseudo-intellectual wittering and nod off.

by the way. if someone in this thread had said, "The skill floor on fury is too high and it's too hard for new players or people who aren't that good at video games to play effectively." i would consider it a more valid reason to offer other options.

but everyone is an expert at playing fury and no one ever has any problems mastering it but they all just happen to not like it.

If you want to talk to me about wow theorycrafting or anything really:Eranthe#1639

by the way. if someone in this thread had said, "The skill floor on fury is too high and it's too hard for new players or people who aren't that good at video games to play effectively." i would consider it a more valid reason to offer other options.

but everyone is an expert at playing fury and no one ever has any problems mastering it but they all just happen to not like it.

the thing that gets me is you have guys like arch, collision and few others who are in some of the best guilds in the world saying the rotation is more challenging than most and then guys like this say its easy and then act all offended when people don't believe them.

Well you linked exactly what i said. From 460ilvl and 46% to BiS and 52%. 6% doesnt seem much to me, considering that other factors come into play like i said crit->enraged. Hell were talking about 10% dps difference a couple days ago being "ok".

What does feel awesome and fun to me at least, comes from crit unfortunately. Having bt crit almost every time thus rb's between bts and been enraged is enough for me, cs or no cs. So if they made it a talent or not and balance it some either way i dont mind. What i do mind is low crit and i am glad they are giving a base crit to bt although might need some pumping up.

Those percentages are completely different metrics though. One is measuring the overall damage difference between two classes that are targeted to be balanced with eachother (which as I said, is much harder said than done, but I digress).

That number is talking about a 6% of damage done between ilvls which is a completely different thing. Not at all comparable.

As for whether or we think it's a big deal is besides the point, I don't think its a big deal either; because its natural that things like CS make a bigger difference as gear gets better. That said, you asked for math and there it is, CS is more important with more gear and less important with less gear.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Sethanor

about the CS discussion, i agree with Archimtiros: balance would go bye bye if arpen tier would be added...
the glyph is a compromise like the inq glyph was for ret... its "fair" to get a bit more dps if you micro-manage stuff better imo.

I don't think balance would go bye bye, I just don't think it is at all feasible at this point in time. I do think it would be a bit too powerful for talents, but that is hardly a design concern (nothing says every talent has to be equal power - across classes).

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Zellviren

But here's the rub.

The Fury rotation isn't hard, which is what's killing your assertion that I must dislike it because it is.

It's just not fun.

Proc-enhanced specs with attacks such as Shield Slam, Lava Surge or Pyroblast(!) are infinitely better, to me, than proc-reliant specs with attacks such as Raging Blow and/or Wild Strike. Proc-enhanced is when your proc feels like a bonus when it lights up, while proc-reliant is when you feel terribly punished if your procs don't come up. When you're playing a proc-reliant spec, one such attack is bad enough. Two is dreadful and, when accompanied by both a maintenance buff (Enrage) and short term rotational cooldown (which is what Colossus Smash effectively is), I don't think we're onto a winner.

THIS is exactly the point I've been trying to make for the last 9 pages.

I didn't try to pigeonhole anything, you stated exactly what you are after. Fun is such a subjective thing, how could it ever be proved one way or the other?

Personally, I don't think the Fury rotation is hard, with higher gear it becomes so sustainable, it is ridiculously easy in my honest opinion. It just comes down to proactive timing vice a lot of classes which are more reactive (to procs, etc). I even posted as much here.

But you hit the nail on the head so to speak. For YOU the spec isn't fun. That doesn't mean the spec requires change. It means you should go play a class you enjoy.

I fucking hate dot classes. TBH I hate most casters, but I used to enjoy a Mage. Since I hate dots, do you see me on the Warlock forums championing to remove dots so that I can be happier playing one? NO, that would be asinine!

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to play a Warrior. I'm saying that all classes are designed differently to offer different things to the game, and the best choice for you is to play the class you enjoy the most. I'm sorry that the two do not coincide.

And if you absolutely must play a Warrior, maybe you will like Gladiator more in Warlords.

THIS is exactly the point I've been trying to make for the last 9 pages.

I didn't try to pigeonhole anything, you stated exactly what you are after. Fun is such a subjective thing, how could it ever be proved one way or the other?

Personally, I don't think the Fury rotation is hard, with higher gear it becomes so sustainable, it is ridiculously easy in my honest opinion. It just comes down to proactive timing vice a lot of classes which are more reactive (to procs, etc). I even posted as much.

But you hit the nail on the head so to speak. For YOU the spec isn't fun. That doesn't mean the spec requires change. It means you should go play a class you enjoy.

I fucking hate dot classes. TBH I hate most casters, but I used to enjoy a Mage. Since I hate dots, do you see me on the Warlock forums championing to remove dots so that I can be happier playing one? NO, that would be asinine!

I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to play a Warrior. I'm saying that all classes are designed differently to offer different things to the game, and the best choice for you is to play the class you enjoy the most. I'm sorry that the two do not coincide.

And if you absolutely must play a Warrior, maybe you will like Gladiator more in Warlords.

I used to really hate Colossus Smash after coming back to raiding from a long hiatus. The more experience I got playing however the more I really came to enjoy it. At this point I cannot imagine playing without it. It adds a huge amount of skill to our play and looking at my logs from when I first came back to now, not that I am incredible or anything I am still pretty poor compared to many on this forum, the difference in just lining things up with CS, using CD's correctly, the correct rotation, etc is incredible.

I play a couple other classes more casually and there is nothing I can do on them that will give me the difference in damage I got from learning to play fury. I guess my point is just that CS really adds a huge amount of depth to Fury as it is right now, I would hate to see that changed to a talent that could potentially be non optimal. It certainly isn't the hardest class in WoW but I have really come to enjoy where Fury stands as it is now.

No, I haven't logged for years. My last ranks were in the Throne of Thunder, while playing Protection; funnily enough, when I stopped raiding.

Originally Posted by Eranthe

but everyone is an expert at playing fury and no one ever has any problems mastering it but they all just happen to not like it.

I hadn't said I'd mastered it. All I'd said was that it was simple enough, and it is; read my post back, like I suggested earlier, and you'll see that. Mastering it takes more practice than I'm willing to put in, not to mention mods and the like that I just can't be arsed with. I play it well enough to have a reasonable opinion on it, and that's what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by Archimtiros

But you hit the nail on the head so to speak. For YOU the spec isn't fun. That doesn't mean the spec requires change. It means you should go play a class you enjoy.

No, it means we have to see if it's you or I who hold the more popular opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, hardcore raiders don't get to make all the decisions on what's "fun" and what's not. It's sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise (and I'm not implying that you are).

The fact that there are as many people in this thread that dislike it as there are that like it implies, pretty clearly, that change is desired by enough people to make it worthwhile. So maybe the spec does require change, and you're in the minority that thinks Colossus Smash is fun.

I'm willing to accept your position on this, Archimtiros, and those who agree with you. It's high time you accepted mine, and those who agree with me rather than dully saying everyone just wants the rotation to be easy.

No, it means we have to see if it's you or I who hold the more popular opinion on the matter. Unfortunately, hardcore raiders don't get to make all the decisions on what's "fun" and what's not. It's sheer arrogance to suggest otherwise (and I'm not implying that you are).

The fact that there are as many people in this thread that dislike it as there are that like it implies, pretty clearly, that change is desired by enough people to make it worthwhile. So maybe the spec does require change, and you're in the minority that thinks Colossus Smash is fun.

I'm willing to accept your position on this, Archimtiros, and those who agree with you. It's high time you accepted mine, and those who agree with me rather than dully saying everyone just wants the rotation to be easy.

I long ago accepted you're position, you don't find it fun. That doesn't mean it requires change.
To be frank, I do not think Colossus Smash is perfect by any means, but I also do not think it is nearly the devil some make it out to be. Truthfully half my arguments in this thread were not even directed at you, it was directed at assertions that CS is all of our damage. That it is crippling the rotation. That it is the fault for crit dependency issues. That rage pooling is such a large issue. And those simply are not true.

You realize however though, that you are never going to find this popular opinion right?

The other day, I heard anecdotally that there were 11k people active on the MMO-C forums. You could double that number or even triple it to account for the people who browse randomly. Only a fraction of that in these forums but for arguments sake lets say every single one of them played a Warrior and cared enough to read this forum and weigh their opinion.
Factor that against the few million WoW subscribers, even a 10th of them and you really don't have much of a basis for calling anything a majority.

Then consider the silent majority, as they often are. People who are happy do not generally speak out, because they have no need to.

Hell you don't even have a polling option at the top of this thread.

But most importantly, you haven't even given the already set in motion changes a chance to prove themselves; most notably:
Secondary stat balancing
Ignite Weapon
Glyph of CS

You realize however though, that you are never going to find this popular opinion right?

Of course I may not; equally, you can't tell me how many people think rage pooling is fun. We just don't know. I have my suspicions for believing what I do, you have yours, and presumably the designers will have metrics for this type of thing which is why we are seeing change.

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to cease our intercession here.

People who say Fury is easy are either 1.) Amazing at fury or 2.) Bad. I've never seen an exception to this rule, and I've taught dozens of warriors.

People who say fury is hard generally are either learning how to play at the >99% level, or know why it's hard (AKA good players).

The bigger issue IMO isn't one of difficulty but that intuitiveness and training on the games part is very low. I like they've taken steps to correct this, and I know of one project in particular that will go a long way towards helping.

The bigger issue IMO isn't one of difficulty but that intuitiveness and training on the games part is very low. I like they've taken steps to correct this, and I know of one project in particular that will go a long way towards helping.

You do realise that this entire line of debate can be copy-pasted from countless threads on these forums? If the best you can do is try to close down a conversation with "GIEF PROOFF OR U SPK RUBISSH OMG" (which is what your commentary amounts to), then it's better you go speak to someone who might be impressed by it.

I won't be. In fact, I'm going to bookmark your response so that the next time I'm struggling with a spot of insomnia, I can read your sleep-inducing, pseudo-intellectual wittering and nod off.

Peace.

If you want to voice your opinion, fine. But dont try to make it come across as the god given truth and people should blindly follow it.